Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

see. i can respect your position. i don't agree with you, but i can respect you because your interest is in your own small (and i imagine secluded) community where you seem to at least be interested in being welcoming and loving and helping and merciful. you do seem to have a tenuous place in the world that might be upset by difference. but it seems that you also have a place that one only lives in if he has the desire to be one of your variety. you have no interest in changing or berating the world around you to fit your standards, you simply live the way that you think is right and demand that only of your small community.
i assume that your 'village' is something like a commune rather than an incorporated township?if only you weren't so rare.

that's what i was referring to. i hope to change the people around me, too, into more loving, compassionate, merciful, forgiving people. do i do this by petitioning for laws requiring charity donations or any such nonsense? no. i do it by trying to be loving, compassionate, merciful, and forgiving and demonstrating that this makes me happy and subject to less stress. and sometimes it works.

oh believe me. i know how messed up florida is. i'm a registered democrat in a red county. i had to change my address since i'm away at school and they have yet to send me my replacement voter registration card... it's been two years and three requests. at least my absentee ballots make me feel better even though they're probably lining someone's circular file.are you using a word processor to compose your posts? some of the words run into each other. you might want to look into that. i've been to urbana for a conference. it's lovely. i thought about going there...there's nothing special about the bill of rights except that they were added all at once as a compromise for some states to ratify. note. they were added as amendments right away. they were not made part of the original constitution. do you think there might be a reason for that? maybe that some people didn't want them or think that they were as important? every single part of the constitution can be repealed. you simply have to have the support for it. but it requires a GREAT deal of support. the bill of rights can't be touched by legislators alone and it can't be broken by any american government (federal, state, local) as long as it stands. but that goes for the rest of the document as well. the fourteenth amendment is just as strong as the first. but then we could also theoretically repeal the presidency or the judicial branch (the question of the day is how many fundies does it take to screw the supreme court?).Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

i like small towns that are walkable and quiet. i also like big cities that are walkable and have fancy commodities like flavored sodas and whatnot. mostly, i like walkable places. also, i love inclement weather.

straight people enter into bogus marriages all the time, especially for immigration purposes. worse, stupid straight people enter into 'legitimate' marriages that fail miserably and quickly. most gay people have taken great consideration of the right of marriage. the fact that other stupid straight people might abuse this right does not mean we should continue to deprive honest gay people of it.besides. do you really think you're risk federal fraud charges for your roommate's health insurance?Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

i know i would.dear admins. this is exactly why we need a private messaging service on this board anyways. my closing thoughts, to keep from wasting the post.the idea that there is no cultural precedent for same sex marriage is preposterous. moreover, arguments for laws from tradition no longer stand with our judiciary. why? because they are inconsistent with a secular, human rights oriented government. the udhr and the laws of other post-industrial democratic states have created a community in which human rights include the right for any legally consenting adult to marry any other legally consenting adult. this is not a slippery slope, as there are no other legally consenting adults. if this does spread into polygamy, so what? that's VERY well established as common practice... even in the bible. fraud is a prosecuted crime and is not a sufficient excuse for denying rights. the government has sufficient interest in regulating marriage, but not in denying rights to groups based on sexual orientation. gay people can work anywhere, live anywhere, go to school anywhere, and adopt children. why can't they marry?the question of who would retain custody if a gay couple divorces is a difficult one, but no more difficult than with a straight couple. it is a question that must, in either case, by law be decided on a case by case basis. the annoying and intolerant question of "who is the mommy" is not a sufficient reason to deny marriage.people who think that the laws of their country should be determined by traditional or religious understanding should find their own country and stop hijacking our intentionally secular constitution.

note. france was impecably secular when that was written.also. harm is not defined by having your religious morals offended.

pm is an off thread messaging option. it tends to be on another member's profile as "send this member a message".de tocqueville was ahead of his time.

begging tradition. baseless claim. provide evidence.

well, clearly we should pick the bible right?what exactly is perversion?dictionary for pervert is
1 To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2 To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3 To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse.
4 To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort:in a secular world, our only determination of good and right is 'that which does not cause physical, mental, or emotional harm'. ie definition number 2.so. if you're going to prove that something is perverse, you have to prove that it causes physical, mental, or emotional harm. we know that depriving people of rights causes all three of these. therefore, deprivation of rights is perverse. do we have any studies that demonstrate that homosexual sex in and of itself between two consenting adults causes physical, mental, or emotional harm?
i'll buy that anal sex can cause serious harm to the anus. it is not self-lubricating. however, with the gentle use of profilactics and lubricants, this damage can be mitigated. are there any studies that demonstrate emotional or mental harm stemming from merely homosexual sexual acts between consenting adults?why should we pick this instead of say... the bible? because our laws cannot and should not be based on religious text. why? the first amendment prevents it, for one. and two, this nation guarantees freedom to those of all religious and cultural affiliation. therefore, we cannot base laws on one text without recognition of other texts. some cultures have always accepted homosexual sex. there are still tribes in the south pacific in which the men (above age 13 i think) live in a central lodge and have all kinds of fun with each other. the women live in individual family huts and raise the children and girls and do other kind of village-y stuff. the men go to their wives to make babies, but find their pleasure among each other. this is the way they have 'always' lived.